UPDATE, 19th February: Muad'Dib has been ransomed and is now awaiting the next hearing. The urgent issue of Him getting out of prison as soon as possible is now behind us. The expenses that may be incurred and this entire ordeal are not. Therefore we would like to thank everyone for the donations but further ones will also be most helpful. Unity is strength.

LLTF, LLTK,

The Fremen.

_________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Could it be that John Hill doesn't have access to that cash to pay his bail? Should be a bit careful before making such accusations.

Yes, she should. But she is on the same side as these slanderers. The smear-piece in the Irish Independent which omits key facts in order to insinuate that Muad'Dib already owned enough to pay for the bail without necessitating a donation, is like a pie being handed to someone (Prole) to use to throw at their target, who doesn't care about the facts, only about attacking the target.

TonyGosling wrote:

But fascinating developments nevertheless.

The implication seems to be this could all be some kind of 'come on', to see who'll support him???

As these DVDs contain material evidence pertinant to the case it seems bizarre to me that the Irish judge should have said what he did.
In any normal situation surely he would look at the evidence then ask for a judicial review.
Surely that's the normal procedure?
But then retrials of Muslims by a judge with an anti-Muslim (Babar Ahmed) history hundreds of miles away is not the usual way either.

Mysterious certainly.

It is certainly designed to prevent support for Muad'Dib from those who are easily swayed by slander.

Spoken in typical prosecutor fashion; not interested in the truth of the matter, only in what the “jury” (the readers) can be made to believe through insinuations.

Firstly, please take note of how the article in the Irish Independent spins the following:-

"Mr Hill's lawyers, at an earlier hearing, requested that Judge Peart view the DVD, but the judge chose not to."

Dearbhail omits that not only had Muad'Dib's legal representatives requested that judge Peart view the film, but that he (Peart) had also stated in court, himself, that he would do exactly that before arriving at a verdict two weeks later. As reported by several witnesses at court, including the writer Gabriel O’Hara from www.wiseupjournal.com. Why did Dearbhail not mention this? Perhaps she wasn't in court, who knows? But if that’s the case, who is feeding Dearbhail with this biased information which is protecting the reputation of a judge that broke his word?

The article does relate judge Peart's "disapproval" of the actions of those who sent him DVD's. And that Peart said it "was clearly an attempt to influence his decision". But once again, the only way to get away with this is by omitting altogether that Peart had stated he was going to watch the film. For how could the act of sending him copies of the film he had stated he wanted to watch, possibly be "influencing his decision"? For the record, we who know that the judge broke his word by not looking at the evidence also strongly disapprove of HIS actions.

Secondly, if your home had been raided over your sending of a DVD, would you say that how much money was in the home at the time would have anything at all to do with it? Whose business is it, how much money was in the home? What need was there to make this public knowledge? Why has this writer mentioned how much money was in the home, possibly inviting thieves who know where Muad'Dib lives, to break in at a later date? Who is telling her what to write? Why was this article published 9 days after the verdict? Is someone worried about people’s reactions since the verdict, that they felt they had to break the "hush-hush" of the verdict in the mainstream media?

These are two examples of why this article is clearly not an unbiased report but a smear-piece ordered by somebody higher up.

Hopefully those who don't swallow the mainstream media lies are beginning to understand what all this is about. But there is more:-

1. The Gardai asked Muad’Dib to fill the pockets of His clothing with the Krugerrands they had found, and then took Him down to the station where He was “booked”, held a few hours and then transferred to prison. Upon arrival at the prison and being taken to see the prison psychiatrist, which is their normal procedure, the psychiatrist asked Him why He was carrying all that gold on Him. Muad’Dib replied that they made Him do it, and the psychiatrist said that now it makes sense. Then the gold was deposited with/at the prison.

2. After 6 days or so, it was established that the gold did NOT belong to Muad’Dib, and had only been entrusted to Him by another for safe-keeping, because this person knows He is trustworthy. It was then released, with Muad’Dib’s permission, to another friend of Muad’Dib in the area who went to pick it up, but had no way to contact the owner to ask if part of it could be used to pay the bail or not. Please note that nowhere in the Irish Independent article does the writer bother to state that the gold did NOT belong to Muad’Dib.

3. Muad’Dib was only able to make contact with the owner after He was released on bail (nearly 10 days later), and the owner came shortly after that to collect it, knowing that after what had happened it would unfortunately no longer be safe in that home. And a good thing too, since now this "responsible" newspaper, the Irish Independent, has told everyone, thieves included, how much money was found in that home.

So there can only be one reason that this article has been written, in the way it has been written. And that is to insinuate that Muad'Dib is greedy and rich and did not need a bail appeal, in order to remove the support of those who are easily swayed by slander. If Muad’Dib’s home had been a mansion, and not a modest flat/apartment, there would probably be photos of it plastered amidst the article too.

The same source who told Dearbhail that those Krugerrands were found in the home, could also have told her that they did not belong to Muad'Dib.

Whether this person told Dearbhail or not I do not know. But one thing is for sure - this fact, plus others I have mentioned, are not to be found in Dearbhail's article.

And if they had been mentioned, it wouldn't have provided any ammo for people like Prole to use. Would it now?

It is interesting that, during the trial, the prosecution took every opportunity they got to bring up the Krugerrands found in the home, as if that was some sign of evil-doing. That perhaps that amount of money should be in a bank, as they’d like us to keep believing. The person who entrusted the money to Muad’Dib does not trust the banks and committed no crime in giving the gold to Muad’Dib for safe-keeping. Neither did Muad’Dib in accepting this responsibility. Dearbhail has parroted the judge’s and prosecution’s propaganda without caring to mention that it was established that the money did not belong to Muad’Dib.

Please remember this occasion when the media is vilifying anyone else. It's easy to filter their nonsense when they are talking about you, or someone you know very well, but they character-assassinate people every day and it's not so easy to see through all of that but we must.

They can say whatever they want and if they can manipulate information to paint Muad’Dib as some cult-leading, money-hoarding, paranoid criminal conspiracy-theorist, think of how bad they can defame people who aren't as ascetic as He is and perhaps give them a bit more to go on.

The article reports (some of) the judge's statements and also parrots (some of) the prosecution's statements in court, and presents it as the "truth" by not obtaining Muad'Dib's side of the story as well. At no time did the writer seek to contact either Muad'Dib or a friend, for His side of the story.

That is how T.H.E.Y. operate.

Something to keep in mind any time the media is defaming someone - Why are they doing it? What threat was this person posing to them?

Obviously news-shows/papers aren't meant to "inform the people for the good of the public."

Apology perhaps.......to someone who has really put himself on the line for truth and justice for the '7/7 patsies'?

Well, I don't. It is a fantastical tale. Police filling his pockets with gold and letting it stay there in the police station and transfer to prison. Ye gods! Why would Irish Plod do that? Did any of this come out in court?

As to "someone who has really put himself on the line for truth and justice for the '7/7 patsies'" by sending spam DVDs to the Kingston Crown Court address and continuing, by proxy, to urge others to make the same utterly futile and incriminating gesture ... they'll crucify him.

Muad Dib isn't perfect by any means, calling himself Jesus just makes him look like a 'come on'... but his film contains evidence vital to see justice done in the 7/7 case.

Can't you see Numeral that it is a gargantuan effort for a member of the public to make a film in the first place. And that whatever the law, he will be arguing, rightly in my opinion, that his only intention in sending the film and the evidence it presents to the judge was to help ensure justice would be done. Not to influence the court but to inform the court.

Gosling, do you seriously believe that there is a single shred of evidence to actually convict any of the 3 men in the 7/7 'helpers' trial? If you do, what do you think it is?

Kbo234 & Danny as Numeral previously stated, what a crock!_________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

The prosecution in the Kingston case believe there is.
Ignore that at your peril.
And if there were evidence to aquit the boys both they and their family would want the judge to hear it.

Prole wrote:

Gosling, do you seriously believe that there is a single shred of evidence to actually convict any of the 3 men in the 7/7 'helpers' trial?

The jury can only convict on the evidence before them, not on what the prosecution tell them. If you believe that the 4 men accused of the events of 7/7 are innocent then surely there can't be any evidence to convict the 3 as helpers?

Quote:

Mr Justice Gross told the jury: "These were chilling, horrific events. It would be surprising if you are not outraged by them. Your sympathy will inevitably lie with the dead, bereaved and injured."

But he added: "It would obviously be wrong to convict the defendants because the events of 7 July were so horrific."

The three men are alleged to have spent two days in London visiting tourist attractions as part of a "hostile reconnaissance" of potential targets.

"It is not the prosecution case that they were the masterminds or that they were responsible for making or detonating the bombs," he said.

But it was alleged that they knew about the plot more than eight months before it was carried out, he said.

However, the defendants called the allegation "a conspiracy theory without foundation", the judge reminded the jury.

Outlining the defence, he said: "They knew the bombers, they sympathised with some of their views, in particular a shared interest in jihad, but they do not support suicide bombings or attacking innocent people.

"They say the trip had no sinister purpose and they were, and remained, in complete ignorance of the bombers' plan."

_________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Thanks Numeral, for putting the wonderful Spam clip on here
The origin of all things Spam online
Apart from that your info re Muad'Dib is worthless
If he's got a large amount of bullion, then that's foresight.
If he was safehousing for a friend then that's sociable
It in no way makes his effort as an interpretation "Spam"
The last place I saw Spam all over the menu in a cafe, interestingly, was at the bottom of Beeston, when I was kind of pulled into the BBC 7/7 filming by Nick Kollerstrom, the latter since comprehensively pulled by the Beeb, presumably because the best efforts of director Tristan Quinn proved too much for the BBC directors
Spam was all over the menu, fried,in batter, in sandwiches, everywhere
Just a short distance from the Hamara Centre, central to the 7/7 myth, where our meeting was pulled by the management, after being leant on by the suits_________________http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

Having looked at most of the collected evidence on your site and watched all 3 films about 7/7, it mystifies me why you so rabidly attack someone like Mr. Hill who quite sensibly and conservatively, in my opinion, joins the dots.

I am personally absolutely convinced that the '7/7 bombers' were patsies set up to play the role of terrorists before and during the 7/7 exercise and to take the blame in the public domain after the evil crime was committed.

The authorities were desperate for something like this outrage to occur. After all, you can't have a 'War On Terror' and no terror.

I would expect you to at least see Mr. Hill as serving a useful purpose in the cause of raising important questions in the public's mind re 7/7 and further publicising the issue.......

......so why the extreme hostility?

Even if everything he alleges is not true, all of what he says is quite possible, even probable IMO, and certainly believable.

Apart from that, I wouldn't trust you one bit, Prole.

When you put out a request for a copy of the 2004 Panorama programme, I sent you one. When I lost my own copy a year or so later I emailed you asking if you'd send me a copy back. You had not even the grace to reply to this request.

When you put out a request for a copy of the 2004 Panorama programme, I sent you one. When I lost my own copy a year or so later I emailed you asking if you'd send me a copy back. You had not even the grace to reply to this request.

Who did you send this to because I haven't ever received a copy - or had a copy requested from me.

I also would have replied to you - perhaps you have the wrong person?_________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

If you believe that the 4 men accused of the events of 7/7 are innocent then surely there can't be any evidence to convict the 3 as helpers?

I, probably in common with many others, would really like to think that only the guilty get convicted. But wake up and smell the coffee. Even with '12 men good and true', first, create a climate of fear, hostility, and trial by media. Then make sure the judge is an establishment man (are there any others?), and the real evidence and truth counts for nothing._________________In the end, it's not the words of your enemies you will remember, but the silence of your friends. Martin Luther King

If you believe that the 4 men accused of the events of 7/7 are innocent then surely there can't be any evidence to convict the 3 as helpers?

I, probably in common with many others, would really like to think that only the guilty get convicted. But wake up and smell the coffee. Even with '12 men good and true', first, create a climate of fear, hostility, and trial by media. Then make sure the judge is an establishment man (are there any others?), and the real evidence and truth counts for nothing.

The '12 men good and true' at the last trial of the 3 failed to convict, even after the judge offered to accept a majority verdict.

Of course there are many miscarriages of justice, especially of so-called terrorists (see Khalid Khaliq and the Crevice crew), just as there were in the days of so-called IRA terrorist attacks, but to believe that sending 7/7 RE dvds to the judge and jury would somehow lead to their release rather than a mis-trial and accusations of perverting the course of justice is just ridiculous. What would you think if someone who wanted these men to be convicted were allowed to do the same thing? Isn't the use of the likes of Rita Katz and Evan Kohlmann as 'expert witnesses' in 'terrorist' trials problematic enough, without wondering if they too were sending dvds to influence the judge and jury?_________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Last edited by Prole on Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

Surely if it was that clearcut none of us should be trying to influence others with evidence? We should sit back and watch the War on Terror unfold?_________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

Surely if it was that clearcut none of us should be trying to influence others with evidence? We should sit back and watch the War on Terror unfold?

I'm obviously talking about a court of law and the present trial, I'm not claiming to support the system, it just happens to be the system that is in place at present. Muad'dib is in the processing of finding out just how clear cut some of these laws (such as attempting to pervert the course of justice) can be. J7 cautioned against such adventurism but many here applauded and still do. No doubt Muad and his followers have their reasons although I'm not convinced that their obvious agenda - Muad for King! - isn't behind much of this._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

When you put out a request for a copy of the 2004 Panorama programme, I sent you one. When I lost my own copy a year or so later I emailed you asking if you'd send me a copy back. You had not even the grace to reply to this request.

Unfortunately, in these cases, Judges often attempt to 'direct' the jury and limit their verdict ... because they are not legal experts the jury often accept the judges directions.

Prole wrote:

The jury can only convict on the evidence before them, not on what the prosecution tell them. If you believe that the 4 men accused of the events of 7/7 are innocent then surely there can't be any evidence to convict the 3 as helpers?

Unfortunately, in these cases, Judges often attempt to 'direct' the jury and limit their verdict ... because they are not legal experts the jury often accept the judges directions.

Prole wrote:

The jury can only convict on the evidence before them, not on what the prosecution tell them. If you believe that the 4 men accused of the events of 7/7 are innocent then surely there can't be any evidence to convict the 3 as helpers?

Yes Tony thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious - you ignore the fact that the jury failed to convict in this trial or in the trial of the 'liquid explosives' - which is why the state has been forced to trial trial again._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

The point here Briget is simply that one cannot simply rely on justice being done in these cases. Therefore it's perfectly rational, for someone not familiar with the law of Contempt of Court, for someone coming across evidence in a DVD to take the step of sending a copy to inform the case.

That's not to say its the correct course of action, since it may be an understandable and well-intentioned act.

Surely it's not our job, as 7/7 Truth campaigners, to judge such people.

We met with John Anthony Hill who got arrested for mailing a DVD (with no letter attached) to a UK court from Ireland (reported by the Irish Times). John is also the producer and narrator of this DVD. Mr Hill, 60 years old, showed us his arrest warrant and gave us permission to pass on information contained in it. The maximum sentence on the warrant is Life Imprisonment in England. John had his computer and other property seized which is why he requested other people to help him as he is not able to defend him self properly as a result. The phony charge is possibly fabricating evidence that might cause injustice and this is from the same country that helped put people in Guantanamo and other torture facilities world-wide. The DVD only contains main stream media news (BBC, ITV, New York Times etc) and the small remainder is his political opinion which as of yet no one is legally supposed to be extradited for, within the EU. The DVDs were also never given to the Judge or Foreman of the trail which is to do with 3 men never mentioned in the DVD. Regardless if you agree or disagree with the contents of this documentary anyone who values freedom would see there is an injustice being carried out here.

John’s court case is on this Thursday at the four courts in Dublin. Having a gathering outside would not change anything inside the court but it might get the media to shine more light on this injustice. John is asking anyone who is not working that day (this Thursday the 19th) to come along at 1:30pm, and anyone who can take a half day. I’m not sure if handing out his DVD or flyers with information contained in the DVD on the street would be WELCOMED by the court, but it is not yet illegal to hand out free materials on the public streets of Dublin that does not promote a commercial event. Anyone who has the technical abilities to make copies or photocopy information and is able to come along might want to think of doing so. The documentary is available free on the Google videos and Youtube, 7/7 Ripple Effect. Perhaps spread this on forums and contact the media if you think it is a good idea or better yet come up with your own peaceful ideas.

I’m sure you would want support too if injustice was being carried out against you, but you should only help because you want to.

Schoolboy, 15, held as terror suspect after taking photos of railway station for GCSE project

They want to send people to prison for spreading public information and political opinion but…. New law: YOUNG burglars and muggers to get off by saying they have a drug habit - it helps to be a young junkie

We did exchange emails about the matter but in the end for one reason or another I did not send her the Panorama programme as she already had my curtailed version.

Apologies are in order.

Sorry about that.......

......and for lapsing into unfortunate and ill-judged personal abuse.

Apology accepted._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

The point here Briget is simply that one cannot simply rely on justice being done in these cases. Therefore it's perfectly rational, for someone not familiar with the law of Contempt of Court, for someone coming across evidence in a DVD to take the step of sending a copy to inform the case.

That's not to say its the correct course of action, since it may be an understandable and well-intentioned act.

Surely it's not our job, as 7/7 Truth campaigners, to judge such people.

Your ability to twist and turn must have you in knots Tony. So using your logic it would be OK if someone (Glen Jenvey for example) hell bent on convicting them to also send dvds to influence the jury and 'inform' the case?

Remember, the road to hell is paved ..... and I don't judge, as I said, we were totally against this course of action and made our views very clear as you well know._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Could Muad just out of interest and reference not have stepped forward as a witness? Could he have made the film available to the defence also?_________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

The thing is that the reality most probably held by the Judge and the jury members, was that the reality was, by commonly held consent, that the 4 perpetrators of 7/7 were guilty. Although that has never been proven nor even properly investigated, other than outside the mainstream
In a trial of guilt by association, therefore, it is quite just that the judge and jury members should be acquainted with an alternative scenario, to that which the general meme, and even the defendants and defence lawyers, through fear of ridicule or something, and consequent heavier sentences, seem immune
Muad's seeking to alter the given construct in the minds of those trying the case seems quite defensible_________________http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum